:D > Is it worth holding up the build to merge CURATOR-331? No, let’s go with what we have.
> On Jun 5, 2016, at 6:48 PM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ah, must still be recovering, I'm sure I saw it was being applied to the > 3.0 branch. > > I will merge it into master and 3.0. > > Is it worth holding up the build to merge CURATOR-331? I have asked Scott > what his opinion is since its the TreeCache stuff. It looks ok to me though. > cheers > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <[email protected] >> wrote: > >> Yes, that’s correct. It’s a patch against master. I’ll do the merge if >> you’re OK with it. >> >> -Jordan >> >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> hey Jordan, >>> The fix for CURATOR-335 looks good to me, but I'm wondering if it should >>> actually be applied against master and then merged into 3.0? >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> no worries - get well. >>>> >>>>> On Jun 2, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for sorting this out Jordan. I'm pretty sick today so won't get >>>>> around to looking at it, but I will try over the weekend or really next >>>> week >>>>> On 3 Jun 2016 7:05 AM, "Jordan Zimmerman" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> It sounds like curator is using a different algorithm since it has >>>>>>> nodes sorting their position to determine if they have a lease or >> not. >>>>>> >>>>>> No - I just added that as I thought there was a bug. But, now I >> realize >>>>>> I’m wrong. So, it was correct all along. Thanks Ben. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Jordan >>>> >>>> >> >>
